New Intel Mac mini

[Lord Blackadder]

Most don't have 600+ to spend on something that has poor performance. But if poor performance is what you want looks like they have an order.

Just curious, what specific apps do you want to run that you think will be so "poor"? The Mini is no gaming machine (never has been). It should run non-gaming apps very well. I think it's premature to convict it of being inferior to bargain basement PCs based soley on paper specs.

A lot of posters a really hung up on gaming performance. But lots of computer users never game, or do so very casually. For these people the Mac Mini is great.

 

[matticus008]

This is typical of someone that knows nothing about graphics.
Do you intend to:
1. Run an operating system?
2. Play HD trailers of upcoming movies?
3. Upgrade to 10.5 or at least enjoy the eye candy of 10.5 if you choose to upgrade to it?
4. Use Photoshop or even Photoshop Elements with a half decent digital camera?
5. Do two things at once, say surf the web and watch movie trailers?

If the answer is yes then integrated graphics will be a performance hit. If the answer is no then I'm wondering what you will be doing with it.
More and more NON game programs require a graphics card. Integrated graphics doesn't or won't meet those minimum standards.

O rly? Photoshop is entirely CPU-bound. Surfing the web and watching movie trailers will work just fine (a 400MHz PC with an 8MB card can do that). If you're watching HD trailers, you're not doing anything else, because what's the point of an HD trailer if it's stuck in a little window? Today's integrated graphics are perfectly adequate for running current operating systems, and will continue to work in the future.

Integrated graphics are suitable for the needs of your average net surfer or office worker. The 3D acceleration isn't great, but nobody has that demanding an OS. So out of your 5 points, none of them are a really compelling argument against integrated graphics. The Radeon 9200 isn't any better for day to day use, so at worst they've held even.

 

[Quixcube]

Umm... Hello? Why do people think that the mini is a gaming machine? It never was before, and it probably never will be.

Have you read the write-up at Apple's site? How is it being marketed? As an iLife/Digital media box. It is small. It is quiet. It is sleek. It hooks up to a TV and lets you show movies, pictures, and it plays music too. It's pretty. The only thing it needs any 3D support for at all is for Aqua effects, which it supports fully with core video.

Who gives a rat's ass if it is a 3D gaming machine? Not the overwhelming majority of people who would buy one.

It will probably make money for Apple. What a horrible thing.

 

[~Shard~]

Well, on the bright side, perhaps this will be an adequate machine to tide over current PowerMac users who are looking for a new Mac but don't want to spend a lot of money on a new PowerMac which isn't Intel-based. It's relatively cheap (not as cheap as it used to be though! 😉) and it might last some users until the Intel PowerMacs come out this fall.

😉

 

[AlmostThere]

Yes, it will not play video games. But after 10 years of Apple consistenly releasing computers that are not aimed at video gamers, maybe you can finally get the @#$(*& clue that Apple is not aiming at the video game market?

We'll wait and see what the bench marks are like but expecting decent performance from something like "The Sims 2" is something a large number of home users should reasonably expect.

It is not Quake 4 - and there is no getting around the requirements for a game like - that but without a doubt is something that sets a minimum standard for 3D performance especially considering both the number and the range of people who buy it.

 

[swingerofbirch]

this has probably been said already, i was just finally able to post,

when the original mac mini came out didnt jobs say something like this isnt one of those cheap pc's with shared video memory?

and what's with the price hike?

the more apple acts like a pc company the more successful it seems to become...i mean really their multimedia machine streams TV shows that are 320x240? that's revolutionary? what about the year of HD? what about the prestige of quicktime

to top it offf my apple stock tanked today

 

[stcanard]

I'm glad you have such low expectations for a computer with this price tag. Looks like a custom fit. For the rest of us that actually expect something for the 600-750 final price tag it's not a good fit. Judging from your minimal needs a g4 mini or a g3 imac would be suitable. Most don't have 600+ to spend on something that has poor performance. But if poor performance is what you want looks like they have an order.

Great, I'm glad I have an expert available!

Please let me know what media centre system I can buy that fits all those requirements (plus an integrated wireless connection to my existing network) and runs silently? Preferably with bluetooth so I can get a keyboard / mouse on it?

And you are very right, my current system is a 15" 1.25G4 ALPB, so that is all I need for my needs.

P.S You seem to be working on an misconception here -- unless you are a student, $600 is quite frankly not a lot of money.

 

[ppnkg]

The good news today: new ibooks are coming real soon. The not so good news: I definitely see the core solo/core duo split applying to the new ibooks too. oh well, the core solo is a big improvement anyway.

I wasn't impressed by the boombox, but the mini looks very good. The idea is that you buy a mini to replace a low-end windows desktop (you have a monitor keyboard etc) and enter the world of mac OS (this is the basic point: I switched about 8 months ago and I'm not going back to windows). The new mini is good enough for this and much more. I wouldn't complain much about the integrated gpu - who would ever buy a mini for heavy graphics stuff?

One last thing: a leather case for the ipod for $99? Haha!

 

[nagromme]

... So why on earth would you buy a mac mini if for $70 more you get a kick-ass graphics card, 40GB more HD space and a better processor?

I understand the home theater use but as an entrance into the Mac world it would be a lot smarter to buy an iMac.

People have a strange habit of adding stuff to a low-end machine and then suggesting it's a better deal to get a high-end machine that already has those things standard. Yes--of course it is 🙂 But if you don't want all those things, the Mac Mini is cheaper. Makes sense to me.

I think it comes down to this: there's demand for a MID-range headless from Apple, and Apple doesn't make one. I hope they will, but the Mini isn't it.

The Mini is something ELSE that is PERFECT for many people.

Many people say the 950 graphics are just awful under Windows, even for basic daily tasks. Others say the 950 is suitable for streaming HD content 😛 I'll wait and see how it plays out in ACTUAL use--with OS X.

 

[Evan_11]

"In other words, THIS IS THE MEDIA CENTER MAC MINI!"

Really? Good thing it has HDMI or Component video output. Right? Oh, it doesn't, so stop.

HDMI is still relatively new. The majority of TV's don't have it. DVI/VGA is much more adaptable. You can use it for hooking up to a computer display or with an inexpensive converter to a regular TV. Besides, HDMI is closely tied to HD and god knows how that will eventually be tied up.

For audio there is the optical connection.

The mini is still transitioning. I think within a couple of revisions we'll see a product that will be as mature as the current iMac. It took the iPod a couple of revisions before it was perfected.

 

[VanNess]

People complaining about the integrated graphics card - have you looked up the specs?

Yes, its a shame that it shares main memory- but what do you expect - for a machine of this price with a rather good processor?

Mac Mini is a really good buy.

It's my understanding that it comes with 64 meg of dedicated video memory on the board, separate from the machines main memory. If that memory becomes saturated, it's capable of allocating more memory from the main memory on the fly if it finds itself gasping for more memory. Under most circumstances, it won't need to.

 

[BlizzardBomb]

O rly? Photoshop is entirely CPU-bound. Surfing the web and watching movie trailers will work just fine (a 400MHz PC with an 8MB card can do that). If you're watching HD trailers, you're not doing anything else, because what's the point of an HD trailer if it's stuck in a little window? Today's integrated graphics are perfectly adequate for running current operating systems, and will continue to work in the future.

Integrated graphics are suitable for the needs of your average net surfer or office worker. The 3D acceleration isn't great, but nobody has that demanding an OS. So out of your 5 points, none of them are a really compelling argument against integrated graphics. The Radeon 9200 isn't any better for day to day use, so at worst they've held even.

Yeah, agree totally. I think it would be good to see a Mac Mini G4 vs. Mac Mini CS vs. Mac Mini CD boot-up test.

 

[leekohler]

Unfortunately I think you are spot on. I think that is exactly what will go in the Ibook. Looks like Apple is trying to save a few bucks and shooting themselves in the foot instead.

Then I'll be keeping my iBook G4 for quite some time. And I was going to sell it soon too.

 

[agentdavo]

The mini was never designed, conceived, or ever pretended to be a hard core gamer's box. Look elsewhere if you need that kind of functionality.

Yeah right...

https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=42080&d=1141157849

 

[rolandf]

The magic is simply gone

Since the switch to Intel, the magic is simply gone.

Sooner or later, only the combination of both soft-and hardware gives an advantage over competitors.

It is a stupid move to give up IBM, especially if they are really to put out the things they specified this month.

Serving both platforms would have been wise.

Look at this:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1821807,00.asp

 

[lexfuzo]

There is enough graphics horsepower in the new mini to handle ... and H.264 1080p HD video

Where did you get that information?

 

[aussie_geek]

It's my understanding that it comes with 64 meg of dedicated video memory on the board, separate from the machines main memory. If that memory becomes saturated, it's capable of allocating more memory from the main memory on the fly if it finds itself gasping for more memory. Under most circumstances, it won't need to.

Yes. It will use available main memory. The max memory the chip will use is 224 Mb - specs from the intel site

intel 950 graphics specs


aussie_geek

 

[Abulia]

Well, on the bright side, perhaps this will be an adequate machine to tide over current PowerMac users who are looking for a new Mac but don't want to spend a lot of money on a new PowerMac which isn't Intel-based. It's relatively cheap (not as cheap as it used to be though! 😉) and it might last some users until the Intel PowerMacs come out this fall.

I know you were winking, so perhaps you were just joking, but in case you weren't…

Why on earth would myself or any other PM user get rid of our PM's for the mini as a "stopgap machine" until the Intel PMs come out? 😕 We currently run every PowerPC or universal app faster than any Intel Mac user right now.

Like I said, I'm sure you were joking, but not sure what you were getting at. The only thing replacing my PM is an Intel PM!

 

[AlmostThere]

Yeah right...

https://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=42080&d=1141157849

For some reason that seems to have disappeared from Apple's web site 😕 😉

 

[~Shard~]

when the original mac mini came out didnt jobs say something like this isnt one of those cheap pc's with shared video memory?

He went so far as to put it right on Apple's Mac mini page. For some reason, now this statement is missing... 😉 😎

(See above screenshot)

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Umm... Hello? Why do people think that the mini is a gaming machine? It never was before, and it probably never will be.

Have you read the write-up at Apple's site? How is it being marketed? As an iLife/Digital media box. It is small. It is quiet. It is sleek. It hooks up to a TV and lets you show movies, pictures, and it plays music too. It's pretty. The only thing it needs any 3D support for at all is for Aqua effects, which it supports fully with core video.

Who gives a rat's ass if it is a 3D gaming machine? Not the overwhelming majority of people who would buy one.

It will probably make money for Apple. What a horrible thing.

Macmini could be used for gaming all it needed was a half decent gpu instead of the 99 cent Intel special. Apple has found a new low when it comes to graphics. What was Apple thinking😕 Bean counters are at again crippling one machine so they can sell the ugly Imac. egad! For all those that are dissapointed i would write the eggheads at apple at let em know how you feel. No wonder they didnt ever anounce the 1.5 G4 mated to the 64 mb ati 9200.

 

[Frump]

Why make such a fuss just because they changed the processor, and a cheaper one at that. They just might have trumped Dell for hype with no substance. The Mini should have been cheaper not more expensive. We all know that the IPOD could subsidize the Mini. Bad marketing if you ask me. They missed a great marketing opportunity.
Apple = 10 for Hype, 1-for delivery.(in this case)

 

[matticus008]

It's my understanding that it comes with 64 meg of dedicated video memory on the board, separate from the machines main memory. If that memory becomes saturated, it's capable of allocating more memory from the main memory on the fly if it finds itself gasping for more memory. Under most circumstances, it won't need to.

Not quite. What it does is take 64MB of system memory right off the top (like a pre-tax retirement plan). If it then needs more, it will take more from main memory, but for most things it won't need to. There's no dedicated RAM separate from the system RAM for this chipset.

 

[wpwj40e]

H.264 1080p HD video .

Please be aware that it CAN NOT do H.264 1080p HD video. There are numerous technical papers that already point this out - so I will spare the details - just google it.

While the other upgrades on the mini were nice - the inability to handle video is a drawback and we are NOT talking about gaming here. Hooking this up to your widescreen LCD or other flat panel - thinking you are gonna be able to get any kind of performance is silly...and unfortunatley that is where the higher end mini is/will be marketed.

Ultimatley this will leave a "bad taste" in the mouths of the "uninformed" consumer who thinks and has heard this will work. They might not know why it s**cks - but certainly they will find out quick enough that it isn't very "fun".

I am disappointed becasue I wanted a mini to hook up to the main tv and do exactly what Mr. Jobs was talking about - however having played with this chipset - very comfortable in what it can and cannot do - it has great difficulty playing 720p - and thats with loads of memory and the appropriate CPU combo - 1080i is horrible and 1080p - while it "plays" is really unacceptable and defeats the whole purpose of a 1080p source or output.

For the price - would be better off getting the 17 iMac and letting it drive your media center - just hide the monitor somewhere🙂

 

[Lord Blackadder]

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1821807,00.asp

Dood, I like linked to that like 5 pages ago. 🙄

Magic is gone? What, where you planning on marrying your computer? The new Intel Macs are very competitive machines. This thread is full of sour grapes, but besides the integrated graphics the Mini has very good specs.